bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Maybe he meant this test. I can't! The website is effed up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 what test did they do in the past? that sounds interesting that they'd do that. i'm talking about something which involves maybe quizing people on who said what in what manifesto? and stuff like that. so that they aren't just blindly voting based on personalities. edit: our system is entirely different from yours though, so i don't really know what i'm talking about beyond british politics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 By not voting, you are also sending a message that you dont care about anything. It is not clear and doesnt solve anything. Sorry, but poor choice in making a statement. Instead of complaining about what you dont like, why dont you try to do something you do like. You Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 what test did they do in the past? that sounds interesting that they'd do that. i'm talking about something which involves maybe quizing people on who said what in what manifesto? and stuff like that. so that they aren't just blindly voting based on personalities. edit: our system is entirely different from yours though, so i don't really know what i'm talking about beyond british politics.Literacy tests were often used in the bad old days to keep African-Americans from voting. If you gave people in this country a current events quiz, I think maybe 20 percent of the electorate would make it to the voting booth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 You Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Literacy tests were often used in the bad old days to keep African-Americans from voting. If you gave people in this country a current events quiz, I think maybe 20 percent of the electorate would make it to the voting booth. that idea of a literacy test is funny! surely the party in power would have to be thinking that their schooling system was pretty appalling in the first place for that to work - which it sounds like it must have been, but to actually think that as the government and play on it is very funny. i don't think you have to be literate to know what's going on, though. and i suppose if only 20% of the electorate got to vote, at least it would be 20% who knew what they were talking about. afterall you're voting for people that you feel know more than you about politics to run the country in the first place, so if you failed the test surely you'd have to say that the ones that passed know more about voting for the politians to run the country, and therefore would be content. it's a crazy idea, but better than the not voting. obviously in the uk if you don't want to vote for the main parties you can always vote for "the monster raving looney party" or some such thing, or even pay the fee to run in the election and takes your chances - it doesn't cost a lot to do that either. which is why some independent politians get a seat in parliament (you should know george galloway from the respect party, which is a good example of a few people setting up a party and winning a seat in parliament) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 not just literacy tests but basically the registrar could ask the applicant anything and deny their registration if the question wasn't answered to their satisfaction..... I mean crazy stuff like, "how many bubbles are there in a bottle of champagne?.....don't know that.....denied." It was this type of thing that really mobilized the Movement in Mississippi in the 1950's among other things. Add to all that the fact that people's lives were threatened and homes attacked for attempting to register to vote...... *sigh* Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 If you can have the power to persuade a big enough population to not vote, you have the power to make the changes you want in itself. Not if the only real outlet for voicing displeasure or demanding change amounts to little more than a choice between two candidates, two parties, neither of which has our best interests in mind. It's not about the voting system, its about the changes you want. Protesting issues without a proper solution gets you nowhere. So we know you dont like the candiates, what does that do for us? So you don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moxiebean Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 By not voting, you are also sending a message that you dont care about anything. It is not clear and doesnt solve anything. Sorry, but poor choice in making a statement. Instead of complaining about what you dont like, why dont you try to do something you do like. I completely support a person's right to not vote because having the choice not to cast a vote is an equally important component of living in a democracy. However, If you choose not to vote then I think you forfeit the right to complain (or even comment) about the results of the election. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 that idea of a literacy test is funny! surely the party in power would have to be thinking that their schooling system was pretty appalling in the first place for that to work - which it sounds like it must have been, but to actually think that as the government and play on it is very funny. i don't think you have to be literate to know what's going on, though. and i suppose if only 20% of the electorate got to vote, at least it would be 20% who knew what they were talking about. afterall you're voting for people that you feel know more than you about politics to run the country in the first place, so if you failed the test surely you'd have to say that the ones that passed know more about voting for the politians to run the country, and therefore would be content. it's a crazy idea, but better than the not voting. obviously in the uk if you don't want to vote for the main parties you can always vote for "the monster raving looney party" or some such thing, or even pay the fee to run in the election and takes your chances - it doesn't cost a lot to do that either. which is why some independent politians get a seat in parliament (you should know george galloway from the respect party, which is a good example of a few people setting up a party and winning a seat in parliament)There was a time in American history where you were taking your life in your hands teaching black people to read. Education for minorities in this country, especially in the South, was god-awful until schools were desegregated, and is still pretty awful today.My personal stance is that my grandfather didn't take a Jap slug in the ass on Guadalcanal and his brother didn't get torpedoed while on a troop ship crossing the English Channel during the Battle of the Bulge for me to turn my nose up at voting just because Karl Marx isn't running for president this year. Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? The lesser of two evils is still a LESSER FUCKING EVIL. Sheesh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 There was a time in American history where you were taking your life in your hands teaching black people to read. Education for minorities in this country, especially in the South, was god-awful until schools were desegregated, and is still pretty awful today.My personal stance is that my grandfather didn't take a Jap slug in the ass on Guadalcanal and his brother didn't get torpedoed while on a troop ship crossing the English Channel during the Battle of the Bulge for me to turn my nose up at voting just because Karl Marx isn't running for president this year. Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? The lesser of two evils is still a LESSER FUCKING EVIL. Sheesh. karl couldn't get up the money for the campaign costs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Hey, its the guy that hillary called a slum lord in the SC debate! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 karl couldn't get up the money for the campaign costs? I think he is undercover as the publisher of my newspaper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The Alabama Voter Application Form and Literacy Test, from the Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 There was a time in American history where you were taking your life in your hands teaching black people to read. Education for minorities in this country, especially in the South, was god-awful until schools were desegregated, and is still pretty awful today.My personal stance is that my grandfather didn't take a Jap slug in the ass on Guadalcanal and his brother didn't get torpedoed while on a troop ship crossing the English Channel during the Battle of the Bulge for me to turn my nose up at voting just because Karl Marx isn't running for president this year. Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? The lesser of two evils is still a LESSER FUCKING EVIL. Sheesh. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 this thread is something. 'Change does not come through voting, it never really has.' Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 1. You know, if Bush had just been honest and said to the American people, "This war is about secure access to oil in a world where we'll be competing with China and India for this resource," I might have been behind it more. I would still be pissed about $3-plus a gallon gas. Is that why we spent all this money and blood? Man, Bush sucks. He can't even get self-serving conquest right.2. Lower voter turnout generally helps the Republicans, the greater of two evils. I don't think either party is going to lose a great deal of sleep about people not voting. I agree with you on the first point. As for 2, low voter turnout hurting the Democrats, as someone who sees very little difference between the parties, another republican in the W.H. does not concern me all that much. I would be willing to bet, should Obama get elected, the democrats will quickly find new reasons and excuses for why we cannot leave Iraq. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive. Though it pains me to say it, I agree with you. (Which is not to say agreeing with you results in personal pain, because it does not, I agree with you quite a bit. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive.What if their newbie democracy wants us out--nearly half the parliament signed on to a statement that they want the US out within the next 2 years. Now, the Iraqi cabinent and the Bushies are negotiating an agreement that would keep us there in perpetuity while being VERY CAREFUL not to call it a treaty (even though it is a treaty), because then the Senate would have to approve it. The exectuive branch run amok. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 What if their newbie democracy wants us out--nearly half the parliament signed on to a statement that they want the US out within the next 2 years. Now, the Iraqi cabinent and the Bushies are negotiating an agreement that would keep us there in perpetuity while being VERY CAREFUL not to call it a treaty (even though it is a treaty), because then the Senate would have to approve it. The exectuive branch run amok.Sure, as long as we would be assured that it wouldn't devolve into a three-way civil war. I realize this sounds a bit paternalistic, and it may well be absurd to try to save a country that never really should have been in the first place, but we may have to save these people from themselves. At least until the giant solar panels are ready. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive. How many Americans have died in Iraq this week?? I saw SCREW THAT!! BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!! NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN SHOULD DIE FOR THIS SHIT Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive. So what if we cant fix it, do we just stay there forever losing american lives and wasting money? Yeah we started it, but maybe we are not the people to finish it. There has to be a point where we have to give up and leave. I say start bring back the troops. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyMike Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 QUOTE (bjorn_skurj @ Jan 25 2008, 03:31 PM) I feel like an ass for saying this, as my own personal ass will never be there, but I don't think we can leave Iraq in the short or medium term. We broke it, we bought it. If we have to nursemaid whatever preemie-baby-type democracy may or may not be there for the next 50 years, this nation is honor-bound to do it, at least until we have enough new nuclear power plants built for all the electric cars we'll have to drive. What if their newbie democracy wants us out--nearly half the parliament signed on to a statement that they want the US out within the next 2 years. Now, the Iraqi cabinent and the Bushies are negotiating an agreement that would keep us there in perpetuity while being VERY CAREFUL not to call it a treaty (even though it is a treaty), because then the Senate would have to approve it. The exectuive branch run amok. We have also spent billions of dollars building the largest embassy in the world and a few permanant bases in Iraq. Nonetheless, there is not one canidate in the race talking about leaving Iraq. In fact, Iraq has barely been an issue in this campaign, which is exactly how Karl Rove and the Republican party have been drawing it up over the last 2 years. I don't know how many people listen to Tom Hartmanm but he has been warning people about the Republicans controlling the topics in this race and appears that they have been successful once again. do we just stay there forever losing american lives and wasting money? Our government is wasting money, but a few corporations are raking it in. Goes to show who is running things in this country. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.